[ad_1]
Eight Mile Style, publisher of Eminem, has filed a new major complaint claiming that Spotify had infringed hundreds of copyright laws on songs and challenged the constitutionality of a law on recently adopted music licenses.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Nashville, Eight Mile accuses Spotify of violating copyright by reproducing "Lose Yourself" and about 250 songs of the rapper, broadcast to his service, for billions of dollars of alleged damage. The lawsuit also includes the Music Modernization Act, a federal law enacted last October to simplify the lives of technology companies and pay songwriters. The lawsuit accuses Spotify, the $ 26 billion Stockholm-based streaming giant, of failing to meet its obligations under the MMA, while attacking head-on one of the few legislative achievements under the presidency of Donald Trump.
According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Hollywood ReporterSpotify has no license for Eminem's compositions, and despite the broadcast of these works billions of times, "Spotify did not count Eight Mile or pay Eight Mile for these streams, but rather paid which in reality represent only a fraction of these flows. "
The lawsuit adds that Spotify has placed "Lose Yourself" in a category called "Copyright Control", reserved for songs whose owner is not known. Eight Mile's attack on the notion "absurd" that he can not be identified as the owner of such an iconic song, the centerpiece of the 2002 film 8 miles, hits No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and wins an Oscar for Best Original Song. According to the map data, Eminem is among the most followed artists on Spotify, with a monthly audience tied with Bruno Mars, Coldplay and Taylor Swift.
Eight Mile is represented by Richard Busch, a Nashville lawyer whose appearance in this case is notable. Ten years ago, he managed an innovative file on behalf of the company that produced the first works of Eminem. This dispute against Universal Music Group has determined whether digital downloads should be treated as "licenses" or "sales" – a significant accounting difference that has changed the economics of music distribution in the iTunes era . More recently, in addition to famously representing Marvin Gaye's family as part of his copyright lawsuit against "Blowed Lines," Busch has attacked Spotify in two alleged infringement cases. These recently settled cases may have played a role in the adoption of the music modernization law by convincing Spotify and other music distributors to sit down at the negotiating table to adopt new legislation.
Before the Music Modernization Act, a persistent problem for digital music broadcasters was identifying and locating the co-authors of tens of millions of copyrighted musical works. Under copyright law, Spotify could obtain a compulsory license for the mechanical reproduction of a song, but it had to send a "notice of intent" and make the required payments. Spotify, like others, is working with the Harry Fox agency to comply, but alleged class action suits, Spotify, have been unsuccessful.
The new law aimed to alleviate the difficulty of "matching" the songs to their owners through a database managed by a collective of licenses, which will grant general licenses from 2021. At the ceremony Trump was accompanied by musicians such as Kid Rock. and John Rich, and he explained how the new law was good for the music community. "I have been reading about it for many years and have never thought about it, but I got involved," Trump said. "They have been treated very unfairly, they will not be treated anymore."
The law on the modernization of music has been hailed by both editors of songs ("We are impressed by the extraordinary progress engendered by the compromise," said the president of the National Music Publishers Assn, David Israelite at the same time. era), as well as by the Digital Media Association, streaming industry. "The MMA will benefit the music community and create a more transparent and streamlined approach to music licensing and artist payment," said Horacio Gutierrez, Spotify's General Counsel for Commercial and Legal Affairs, following the announcement. adoption of the law.
The streamers may have thought that their copyright issues were coming to an end, but that feeling could have been both optimistic and premature.
Eight Mile now alleges that Spotify's attempts to issue intent notifications for Eminem's music are "untimely and ineffective" and that the broadcaster can not demonstrate compliance with the Modernization Act music.
"First, in its terms, the MMA Limitation of Liability section applies only to compositions for which the copyright owner was not known, and to works never before matched (compositions not previously corresponding to sound recordings), and not to "associated" works for which DMP [Digital Music Provider] knew who was the owner of the copyright and had just committed a copyright infringement, "states the complaint.
In other words, Eight Mile claims that Spotify knew who owned exactly these Eminem songs, and even though it was not, Spotify "did not engage in the commercially reasonable efforts required to match sound recordings to Eight Mile's compositions as the 39, requires the MMA ".
Spotify will surely have its own interpretation of the law on modernizing music once it has filed its court documents. THR Reached out to comment on the costume.
In a document filed at the beginning of the year, the company explained how, between October 2018 and December 31, 2020, the mechanism for obtaining a compulsory license was no longer operational and that there was a "risk" in cases where she did not have a direct license and could not locate the owner of a composition. In addition, Spotify warned that the law on modernization of music, once fully implemented, could actually increase the costs and difficulties of obtaining licenses, especially in case of delay in the adoption new regulations.
The editor of Eminem does more than question the compliance of Spotify with the author's right. The lawsuit also makes a pretty daring argument regarding the constitutionality of a new law.
The Music Modernization Act provided for a carrot for banners in the form of a blank slate for past infringements in copyright law. Those who did not sue at the end of last year had no luck (which is why Tom Petty's Wixen publisher has taken action since then). against Spotify on the eve of the new year).
But, as Eight Mile claims, attempting to retroactively erase the ability of a copyright owner to recover profits, statutory damages and attorneys' fees equals "an unconstitutional taking of the property right acquired by Eight Mile", which basically means that the law on the modernization of music would violate the clause of acceptance of the fifth amendment.
Spotify and other participants in the technology lobbying efforts "knew what they were doing," says the Eight Mile complaint. "Given the penny paid for streaming to songwriters, the elimination of the combination of profits attributable to the violation, statutory damages and attorneys' fees would essentially eliminate any prosecution for infringement of the author's right, as it would make the cost of such action prohibitive, and would further guarantee, with the removal of those remedies, the last obstacle to public access to Spotify was crossed, which has The property rights acquired by Eight Mile et al., are not intended for public use, but for the private benefit of private companies. "
The application of the purchase clause to copyright reform is, according to the terms of a 2015 article in the Harvard Law Review, territory "largely unexplored", the researchers sometimes "expressed concern that the application of the examination of the clause Takings to intellectual property can not prevent a legal change."
The question of an unconstitutional decision was raised during the legislative process, although it was mainly aimed at addressing a different aspect of the Music Modernization Act – the treatment of pre-1972 registrations, which are now eligible digital copyright.
The lawsuit filed by Eminem's publisher is now ready to submit tough questions to a court.
As compensation for alleged copyright infringement, Eight Mile is seeking the substantial benefits of Spotify, which the complaint is attempting with difficulty to attribute to the widespread theft of songs with the same title as "Lose Yourself". (Universal, Sony and Warner Music hold large stakes in Spotify.) If the plaintiff has difficulty demonstrating that Spotify has benefited from the lack of a license, the lawsuit seeks as an alternative the maximum amount of legal damages – 150,000 USD for each of the 243 works in issue, representing $ 36.45 million. The lawsuit also requests a judicial declaration stating that Spotify can not claim damages under the law on modernization of music, as well as a second statement stating that the retroactive elimination of damages available interests for violation of copyright is unconstitutional.
[ad_2]
Source link